Quantcast

Comments about ‘My view: Utah nuclear power risks no big deal’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 22 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

If Nuclear power was 'no big deal'...

why did Energy Solutions bury radioactive waste even they acknowledged would get 'hotter' and more radioactive with time in Utah...

that was from Italy?

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

You have to convince banks to the average conservative Utah'n that will go along with it if the radio says so.

I don't have a problem with nuke power as long as it's not the older type technology that can't finance it's self and relies on heavy subsidies and government guarantees to clean up whatever messes are ever made.

Utah just decided not to have a nuclear waste site. What makes you think you can get Utah'ns to go along with reactors? But I wish you luck.

For the average joe just put solar panels on your house, it's cheaper electricity than any utility. The reason they say solar is too expensive is that THEY have to buy land to do it and THEY can't make much money on it and the government can't figure out how to tax sunlight. Mine are working great, and paid for them selves completely. Now I'm just getting free power.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I still say we're missing a great opportunity in trying to keep radioactive waste out of Utah.

Send it here from all over the world and spread it out.

Then, think of all the money we will save on our electric bills when the entire state glows in the dark!

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment is ideologically -- not scientifically -- opposed to mining, fossil fuels, and nuclear power. They push their environmental extreme agenda even though the facts don't support it. Their heavy handed government prescriptions will further damage our economy, raise prices, cost jobs, and erode our freedom, all while providing little or no provable health benefit.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Pagan" if nuclear power was as hazardous as your ilk claims, why is it that Salt Lake City doesn't have a problem with it??? They have a nuclear reactor operating just outside downtown that has less radiation directly above the reactor chamber than you can measure outside on a clear day.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

The Zion Nuclear Power Station hasn't been operated in 15 years after a series of operational blunders Redshirt.

All the fuel was removed from the reactor and placed in on site storage. Go measure over there.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Screwdriver" I said nuclear reactor, not nuclear power plant. The U of U has a fully functional nuclear reactor operating on its campus. If nuclear power is so evil and will cause so many problems, why is it that there are no problems in the area around the U of U reactor?

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

UoU's experiments have nothing to do with the price of rice in china either.

It just shows how far you're willing to stretch an argument.

A lot of hospitals practice nuclear medicine, it has nothing to do with the conversation of nuclear power either.

Chernoble does.

There are new designs that may be safe enough. The proof is if they can get insurance not backed by the federal government. I don't have a problem with equal subsidies to solar but not more in the form of blanket loss and damage coverage by the government.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Screwdriver" the UofU reactor is a lot more powerful than the hospital nuclear medicine. It is a 2 MegaWatt reactor. That is enough power for up to 2000 homes.

You are wrong about private insurance. According to the NRC, "Under existing policy, owners of nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $375 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit."

It seems that they can "get insurance not backed by the federal government."

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments